Quote:

Since this hasn't been addressed in a long time I thought a new thread would be appropriate

How do these things work? Have there been any tests?

Maybe we could get Ted D to do a group tour.
I would love to give these a try.
These group tours happen a lot at AC.
The bowls could go state to state and safely return to Ted and we could all post impressions.

I am actually serious about this, I think it would be interesting.
Imagine if some of the most skeptical heard a large diff. and some of the non skeptics didn't.

Stranger things have happened.

However, imagine if the most skeptical didn't hear a large difference and some of the non-skeptics did. Ah, the best laid plans of mice and men....

Do you really think that someone who is a committed skeptic, someone like, say, j-j -- who's poured such effort into "debunking" controversial tweaks over many, many years, one might say with the perseverence of a Gila Monster -- would actually state publically he heard ANY differences, let alone LARGE differences, with a controversial tweak like the little bowls, even if he did? Hope springs eternal.

Quote:
How do these things work?

Before we begin any discussion of whether the ART devices qualify as "Science or ??????", I would think it might be instructive to first arrive at an agreement. Since many forum members prefer to narrowly define "science" to suit their own needs at the moment, rather than restart the wars over the ART devices I propose we discuss the following ...

What is science?

How do we recognize it and what are its procedures?

What are the end goals of scientific investigation?

And, of course, what exactly is "??????"?

Would you recognize "??????" if you saw, heard, or experienced it?

If we experienced "??????" and had no explanation for whether it is science or not, does that qualify as science itself?

Does "??????" represent science at its most basic element or just another dismissal from someone on one side of the fence who happens not to have any scientific background?

And, then, can only "scientists" be involved in "science"?

Of course, all of these questions have already been answered hundreds of times and in every thread where "science" - as defined by a few to mean coldly detached mechanical "measurements" - is held as the be all and end all of human experience. Just as the concept of operation of the ART devices has been covered. But which approach would be the more productive, rehashing old, non-productive arguments which likely will always remain unresolved or finally arriving at a useful definition which all could use going forward?

The larger more pertinent question then goes beyond the ART devices, geoff's creations and demagnetizing LP's and takes the thread to a more universal theme where a complete, willful lack of experience with and understanding of the ART devices, demagnetizers and pebbles is not an automatic disqualifier. We all know "science", we use it every minute of every day. Therefore, we all have experience with science while only a select few have any experience whatsoever with the ART devices.

So, why rehash the same old crap over and over, why argue about the same products constantly? Can't you think any larger than that?

Do you truly find it amusing to do nothing but argue? Or, to sit on the sidelines watching others argue just to enjoy the pitch of neverending battle?

Why not cut to the chase and make an argument for science or against science? Rather than arguing endlessly over products very few here have experience with and many are unwilling to accept or attempt to understand at all, why not deal with something we all should have been taught in high school?

Rather than a few of us providing ideas which will be rejected and belittled by others, why not make an attempt at working together for a common goal? Rather than jumping right back into the personal accusations, why not try for a common understanding?

Rather than a few of us providing hypotheses and guesses which appply to products where the true method of operation remains largely a corporate secret - as it should, why not deal with a universal topic that is not a secret at all? Shouldn't we all be capable of reaching an agreement about the nature of science? Wouldn't that be preferrable to another fight?

We have several scientists and investigators trained in scientific methods on the forum, why not get a start on just what science is and then, in the next thread, we can discuss whether those concepts apply to whatever conventional or unconventional device comes along? Unless, that is, you just enjoy the neverending conflict, the ART devices have been discussed as much as need be for now. No new ground will be covered by another discussion of the ART devices.

IMO this would be a far more productive thread than restarting were we just left off - which ended in yet another closed thread. Of course, if all you're trying to accomplish by starting this thread as it was originally stated is to once again stir the "shit pot" that has yet to cool down from the last go'round, then I suppose you wouldn't actually want to be any more productive than that last thread managed.

Which is it?

Stir?

Or, discuss?

Quote:

Do you really think that someone who is a committed skeptic, someone like, say, j-j -- who's poured such effort into "debunking" controversial tweaks over many, many years, one might say with the perseverence of a Gila Monster -- would actually state publically he heard ANY differences, let alone LARGE differences, with a controversial tweak like the little bowls, even if he did? Hope springs eternal.

So you think JJ is a liar and would hide any positive results?First post in a new thread and you come out with the usual blah blah blah. How about YOU send some of your products around for a fair evaluation also?

Jesus Christ just MEASURE the fucking bowls already and get it over with........define science.........wtf?

Traditional acoustic measurements like with any speaker, with and without the bowls present and a DBT. Anything else isn't needed. If you can't tell a difference with your eyes closed but still argue that the test isn't valid then you have other issues regarding your own integrity and intelligence.

MEASURE THE DAMN BOWLS!!!!!!!!!!

Quote:
"Since this hasn't been addressed in a long time I thought a new thread would be appropriate

How do these things work? Have there been any tests?

Maybe we could get Ted D to do a group tour.
I would love to give these a try.
These group tours happen a lot at AC.
The bowls could go state to state and safely return to Ted and we could all post impressions.

I am actually serious about this, I think it would be interesting.
Imagine if some of the most skeptical heard a large diff. and some of the non skeptics didn't.

Stranger things have happened.

**********
My reply to Tomtjxt

Quote:
"How do these things work?"

Surely that is what was being ATTEMPTED to discuss in the 'thread' just closed by Stephen ?

Quote:
"Imagine if some of the most skeptical heard a large diff. and some of the non skeptics didn't."

But surely some of the most skeptical HAVE heard a large difference already and reported such ???????? Surely Jason Victor Serinus is what you would describe as 'skeptical' ? Ditto John Atkinson ? Ditto Clark Johnsen ? Ditto Paul Messenger ?

THEIR reports have been dismissed with cries of "Where are the measurements ? Show us the measurements that we might believe." So, surely, exactly the same response is inevitable from the 'group tour' you suggest ? It is a great idea, don't get me wrong, and kudos for at least trying to 'think' of ways around the stalemate !!

I am trying to address this 'stalemate' with another thread - but this time centred under "Tweaks" section as the particular section we are in now is called "Room Acoustics" which might not be appropriate if 'things' MIGHT not actually be altering the acoustic air pressure waves of a room !!!!!!!

Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.

Would you believe it, Jan, but you have taken so many of the words I have just been typing 'right out of my mouth' so to speak.

I moved my input over to the Tweaks section because it all got 'bogged down' about 'room acoustics' on this one !!

Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.

Quote:

But surely some of the most skeptical HAVE heard a large difference already and reported such ???????? Surely Jason Victor Serinus is what you would describe as 'skeptical' ? Ditto John Atkinson ? Ditto Clark Johnsen ? Ditto Paul Messenger ?

Jason Victor Serinus? Mr "All cables and power cords I have ever tried made a big difference in my sysytem"? yeah he sounds like a real skeptic !!!!!!!!!!!!! (exclamation points to make it seem more dramamtic!!!!!!!!!!

Quote:
Which is it?

Stir?

Or, discuss?

Quote:
Jesus Christ just MEASURE the fucking bowls already and get it over with........define science.........wtf?

I'll put you down as a f'ing "stir stick".

I have to say is it officially groundhog day?
Is one of the major posters Bill Murray?
Is this a perpetual motion subject?

Seriously, the science has been layed out; in that the hypothesis-theories/process-mechanism of testing requirements and considerations, with the possibility of measurements and modelling.
These are what make up the scientific approach in determining what is happening.
Obviously something is happening, but as outlined in the previous thread and nicely outlined by JA several times we do not have actual facts, and we will not until the considerations and implemented tests for the theories are followed through.

The only real relevant science IMO is how we all approach these products with our opinions and critical debate.
In other words whatever we say for now is pure conjecture, maybe that is one area for plausible discussion and can include I guess just how far marketing should go and whether any lines are crossed with the use of science.

For anything else I would hope we all could hold off until JA and the independant engineer has time to follow through with this, unless ofcourse someone has further considerations and potential requirements applicable to any of the tests.

Cheers
Orb

Quote:

I'll put you down as a f'ing "stir stick".

Please see my post here http://forum.stereophile.com/forum/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=89916&an=0&page=0#Post89916

"May, while I respect your opinions about audio, I almost universally disagree with 99% of them. That being said, the ONLY way for a thread not to be locked is by the participants not name calling or insulting others. Good luck with trying to keep that to a minimum"

Quote:
The bowls could go state to state and safely return to Ted and we could all post impressions.

This would be incredibly cool!

I would love to try them at home, with or without any explanation as to what they may do.

The best for me would be a demonstration where the designer - or someone else with a full appreciation as to how to properly set them up - puts them in a listening room and then takes them out. I would relish the opportunity to listen for differences.

Quote:

Quote:

Do you really think that someone who is a committed skeptic, someone like, say, j-j -- who's poured such effort into "debunking" controversial tweaks over many, many years, one might say with the perseverence of a Gila Monster -- would actually state publically he heard ANY differences, let alone LARGE differences, with a controversial tweak like the little bowls, even if he did? Hope springs eternal.

So you think JJ is a liar and would hide any positive results?First post in a new thread and you come out with the usual blah blah blah. How about YOU send some of your products around for a fair evaluation also?

How about I send some of my products around for a fair evaluation? Exactly my point! You catch on quick, Kemo Sabe.

This seemed pretty fair http://www.ultraaudio.com/equipment/machina_dynamica_clock_signature.htm

Quote:
Do you really think that someone who is a committed skeptic, someone like, say, j-j -- who's poured such effort into "debunking" controversial tweaks over many, many years, one might say with the perseverence of a Gila Monster -- would actually state publically he heard ANY differences, let alone LARGE differences, with a controversial tweak like the little bowls, even if he did?

Misdirection again Geoff?

You know J_J along with others gave a recent presentation on this exact subject, that all humans, including himself hear differently every time we listen. What he may dispute is whether or not clocks, peebles, or bowls have anything to do with it.

Quote:
This seemed pretty fair http://www.ultraaudio.com/equipment/machina_dynamica_clock_signature.htm

As I've already mentioned wrt the Ultraaudio review -- win some, lose some, some are rained out. The clock was reviewed positively at least twice in the past, and won Positive Feedback's Brutus Award. If you don't mind a little more philosophy: If you try long enough, you'll stumble across someone who doesn't get the expected results. Uh, kinda like anything else in audioland, eh?

Quote:

Quote:
Do you really think that someone who is a committed skeptic, someone like, say, j-j -- who's poured such effort into "debunking" controversial tweaks over many, many years, one might say with the perseverence of a Gila Monster -- would actually state publically he heard ANY differences, let alone LARGE differences, with a controversial tweak like the little bowls, even if he did?

Misdirection again Geoff?

You know J_J along with others gave a recent presentation on this exact subject, that all humans, including himself hear differently every time we listen. What he may dispute is whether or not clocks, peebles, or bowls have anything to do with it.

Hmmmm, so he's projecting his behaviors/suspicions on all humans. Fascinating!

I don't even get why the discussion of science in audio is so necessary, when it's evident that someone hears a difference. Those who don't can sell the thingies, and move on. Isn't it about getting a sound that makes you happy? Then who needs scientific proof ffs?

Someone afraid to be left alone with their belief?

Quote:
The best for me would be a demonstration where the designer - or someone else with a full appreciation as to how to properly set them up - puts them in a listening room and then takes them out. I would relish the opportunity to listen for differences.

This suprises me coming from you. I would want the complete opposite. The designer or dealer has too much influencial power of suggestion. The same could be said of a large group of fellow hobbyists. It only takes one to start suggesting this or that aspect has improved then others follow.

I found it interesting one of the group participants from JVS group was unable to obtain the results he heard at the group demo on his own at home, till the dealer came over and repositioned the devices.

Last I read the placement instructions, quite a bit of leeway including omission of some devices was OK and still yielded great results.

Quote:
This seemed pretty fair http://www.ultraaudio.com/equipment/machina_dynamica_clock_signature.htm

"Before the music starts, might someone believe that there will be a difference, and because of this belief, the differences become discernible? If so, then the question is, did the listener hear actual improvements, or did they hear something they wanted to hear -- something that doesn

Quote:

Quote:
The best for me would be a demonstration where the designer - or someone else with a full appreciation as to how to properly set them up - puts them in a listening room and then takes them out. I would relish the opportunity to listen for differences.

This suprises me coming from you. I would want the complete opposite. The designer or dealer has too much influencial power of suggestion. The same could be said of a large group of fellow hobbyists. It only takes one to start suggesting this or that aspect has improved then others follow.

An excellent point.

My thinking is that I would like to experience the product at its optimum, where the designer has tweaked it to perfection. Giving the product its best shot if you will.

It was good to be back, then I had to abandon ship for a couple of days. Sorry, everyone, but I see the discussion has resumed.

Alas I missed reading all those deleted messages. I don't know Mr. Sammett, but I can imagine what jj must have said!

Elk wrote: Thus, a number of us would really like to see a conventional explanation.

Sorry, I personally put no stock on stock explanations. They're fine, but only up to a point. For instance, we all remember when audio measurements consisted almost entirely of "frequency response", "THD" and S/N ratio. How useful are those conventions today?

Elk also wrote: Do you know or have a hypothesis?

I do not. Wish I did! The devices would have to live with me for a while. But even then... well... can't be sure.

Elk also asked me what I thought they did to the sound. Best I can recollect (and I don't have my notes with me) they seemed to reduce smear, giving more definition to various instrumental groups and voices. Best analogy I have is effective vibration isolation. But how to measure smear? Aye, there's the question. Yet we all know it exists.

Elk: My thinking is that I would like to experience the product at its optimum, where the designer has tweaked it to perfection. Giving the product its best shot if you will.

Oh indeed, indeed. I wouldn't have it any other way. Waste of time! Which is why I was grateful to have had both types of ART demoed to me by the masters.

Great reply, Clark! This is precisely what I was interested in knowing.

I appreciate how hard it is to explain why a system sounds "better." Better can involve so many different things.

I know what you mean by less smear however. Somehow this also intuitively makes sense in the context of these bowls.

Quote:
we all remember when audio measurements consisted almost entirely of "frequency response", "THD" and S/N ratio. How useful are those conventions today?

They are relevant and useful, but hopefully we have learned that measuring at a resolution much greater than our ears can discern - while ignoring everything else - is not the way to good sound. Crispy is not better!

(I still have a Technics receiver in my garage - does a great job for its purpose; bullet-proof regardless of temperature, humidity and age! But hardly a sound quality champ.)

Thanks for taking the questions and comments seriously.

Quote:

Sorry, I personally put no stock on stock explanations. They're fine, but only up to a point. For instance, we all remember when audio measurements consisted almost entirely of "frequency response", "THD" and S/N ratio. How useful are those conventions today?

Elk also asked me what I thought they did to the sound. Best I can recollect (and I don't have my notes with me) they seemed to reduce smear, giving more definition to various instrumental groups and voices. Best analogy I have is effective vibration isolation. But how to measure smear? Aye, there's the question. Yet we all know it exists.

As I said at the start of this thread,"Traditional acoustic measurements like with any speaker, with and without the bowls present and a DBT. Anything else isn't needed. If you can't tell a difference with your eyes closed but still argue that the test isn't valid then you have other issues regarding your own integrity and intelligence."

"Smear" if it's heard would be measurable in the acoustic and time domain.
Oh yes those "out of date" frequency response, "THD" and S/N ratio measurements you mean those same measurements that JA uses on amps, preamps, cd players and other equipment?

Quote:

As I said at the start of this thread,"Traditional acoustic measurements like with any speaker, with and without the bowls present and a DBT. Anything else isn't needed. If you can't tell a difference with your eyes closed but still argue that the test isn't valid then you have other issues regarding your own integrity and intelligence."

Sorry, but I vehemently disagree.

No measurement other than listening is required. No traditional acoustic measurements needed.

If the difference in sound can be consistently identified by ear without the listener knowing if the bowl is in place or not is all that is required.

No measurement required. Just listening and identification of differences.

I agree. Why measure how and why a car will move, if you feel it moves?

Quote:
I agree. Why measure how and why a car will move, if you feel it moves?

Can you still tell it's moving if your eyes are closed or you do not know the brand and model of the car?

When you were younger, did you ever blindfold someone and drive and see if they could guess where they were?

Can you tell it's Havarti without looking?

Quote:

Quote:
I agree. Why measure how and why a car will move, if you feel it moves?

Can you still tell it's moving if your eyes are closed or you do not know the brand and model of the car?

When you were younger, did you ever blindfold someone and drive and see if they could guess where they were?

Can you tell it's Havarti without looking?

I can tell if a car is moving even when blindfolded, providing it moves faster that a turtle. No matter the brand or model. My inner ear will tell me.

No I never tried that, but I did try to sit backwards on a bike (as a passenger) with closed eyes, and it is scary!

Probably not, but I can tell it's cheese!

Quote:

Quote:

As I said at the start of this thread,"Traditional acoustic measurements like with any speaker, with and without the bowls present and a DBT. Anything else isn't needed. If you can't tell a difference with your eyes closed but still argue that the test isn't valid then you have other issues regarding your own integrity and intelligence."

Sorry, but I vehemently disagree.

No measurement other than listening is required. No traditional acoustic measurements needed.

If the difference in sound can be consistently identified by ear without the listener knowing if the bowl is in place or not is all that is required.

No measurement required. Just listening and identification of differences.

If Ted claimed the bowls effect the acoustic response then we should test for his claims. It's no big deal to set them up and run some tests but then again it's been delayed for two years now if you count the "promise" Ted made at Audio Circle also. The botched REW graphs not included of course

Quote:
Can you tell it's Havarti without looking?

Compared to what? Ementhaler? A harder cheese, it's been aged longer. Pecorino Sardinia? A goat's milk cheese.

It would depend on where the product originated and how it was aged. Context counts. Inexpensive cheese is as bland as cheap audio.

Contrary to your favored opinion, not everyone needs to see in order to perceive.

Your question is quite broad in nature. More to the point, could you distinguish a '95 Chianti from a '96 Classico? Minute differences in region, rain fall and length of season result in noticeable improvements perceived by those paying attention - those who do not choose their wine by the nice looking label on the sale rack.

We're right back to "Sharpeners" and "Levelers" with the exception in audio that no one wants to be a "Leveler". Everyone wants to think their audio perception is as good as Obama playing basketball while no one wants to accept the fact their perception might be more akin to Obama bowling.

Way back when I mentioned the DOC boards in Italy. The judges are comparing all offerings to a DOC ideal - say, an ideal Chianti Classico. They are not saying one '96 Classico is better than another, that is left to the retailer and the buyer to decide. The DOC board is saying a particular specimen meets the standards for the product. This judgement is always a perception of deviance from an ideal not a better or worse situation. There are no labels for the judges to see, they do their job by perception alone. They are "Sharpeners".

Now, apply that same approach to audio and the end user is making a value judgement as to how closely the music - before and after any treatments or alterations - adheres to their standards for reproduced music. The absolute - their ideal - is their experience with live music and, if the music is closer to the live experience after the treatment, then the treatment is a success.

A point I've made before is, how much of your perception of "traditional" room treatments comes from what you are told you should hear? You expect "X" result and that's what you perceive. If you're paying for someone to come in with measurement devices, you perceive what they tell you the measurements indicate and you think, "That's much better now."

Then six months later you pull some of the refrigerator doors out of the room and you go, "Oh my! That's much, much better now!"

Probably more bass traps and Sonex panels are sitting in closets than are Tice Clocks.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

As I said at the start of this thread,"Traditional acoustic measurements like with any speaker, with and without the bowls present and a DBT. Anything else isn't needed. If you can't tell a difference with your eyes closed but still argue that the test isn't valid then you have other issues regarding your own integrity and intelligence."

Sorry, but I vehemently disagree.

No measurement other than listening is required. No traditional acoustic measurements needed.

If the difference in sound can be consistently identified by ear without the listener knowing if the bowl is in place or not is all that is required.

No measurement required. Just listening and identification of differences.

If Ted claimed the bowls effect the acoustic response then we should test for his claims. It's no big deal to set them up and run some tests but then again it's been delayed for two years now if you count the "promise" Ted made at Audio Circle also. The botched REW graphs not included of course

If you want to measure, I'm certainly not opposed to that.

However, I believe that listening is the final arbiter.

Contrary to the calamatous cacophony that the "DBT Deafness" crowd concurs with, I think it matters not how something measures if I am pleased by how it sounds.

For me, the 'proof' is if I can tell the difference without the ceremony and set up of knowing in advance what the listening situation is.

Not that hard, sales bullshit aside.

For that tragic chorus opining that they themselves are DBT retards and are only able to hear differences when they know the conditions, I'll keep walking with my lamp of sonic vision shining light on the path for blind listening savants.

1) David L

Quote:
If Ted claimed the bowls effect the acoustic response then we should test for his claims.

Agreed. There is no reason this should be hard or take months/years to accomplish.

2) Buddha

Quote:
If the difference in sound can be consistently identified by ear without the listener knowing if the bowl is in place or not is all that is required.

Also agreed.

Now if 2 is conclusively established and we can't measure a difference we have a quandary.

Does this mean we don't know what to measure? (unlikely).

Does it mean the listener is being affected independently of the sound in the room? Perhaps.

Quote:
Can you tell it's Havarti without looking?

I hope so.

But it is astounding the degree to which even experienced chefs have difficulty distinguishing between basic food items if they cannot see them prior to tasting. Our senses are strongly integrated.

Quote:
Contrary to the calamatous cacophony that the "DBT Deafness" crowd concurs with, I think it matters not how something measures if I am pleased by how it sounds.

For me, the 'proof' is if I can tell the difference without the ceremony and set up of knowing in advance what the listening situation is.

I find it hard to disagree with this. In the end, reproduced sound is about subjective pleasure.

If something changes this experience it should be easy to tell just be listening - no knowledge needed of what it is, how it works, who sells it, how much it costs.

But don't claim the differences can be measured and fail to do so.

In reply to David L:

Quote:
"Smear" if it's heard would be measurable in the acoustic and time domain.

Easy for you to say! But let's take an example: jitter. I think we can all agree that it (or anyway *something* in CD) causes one to hear the phenomenon of "smear". While granted jitter can be measured in the digital domain, I am curious as to how it's measured in the "acoustic domain". What is the instrumentation? I'd sure like to know!

Or another example: Insufficient or incorrect isolation of audio components from the earth, or seismic environment, also leads to smear. How is this effect measured? I'd sure like to know that too!

Quote:
Oh yes those "out of date" frequency response, "THD" and S/N ratio measurements you mean those same measurements that JA uses on amps, preamps, cd players and other equipment?

Waaal... hasn't quite a lot of sophistication been applied lately? "Frequency response" in the not-good old days meant amplitude response; nowadays we check for phase response too, which is perhaps even more important. "THD" has been laughed out of the house; now we look at a spectrum of distortions *and* their harmonics. Meanwhile IM entered the picture, and later TIM. And more!

But to answer your question, No. The old measurements are not JA's measurements; JA is no reductionist. He can correct me if I'm wrong!

Quote:
I can tell if a car is moving even when blindfolded, providing it moves faster that a turtle. No matter the brand or model. My inner ear will tell me. ...

People can tell a car is moving by various cues. Road vibration is one of those cues even if blindfolded.

There was a plane crash years ago [Edit: while flying at night in a rainstorm], and partly because the pilot could not tell the plane was upside down by his own senses (inner ear), even if the instruments were telling him opposite. This is an example that senses can be fooled and that specific instruments that are not dependent on what he was sensing was displaying the correct information.

So the claim that was made is not supported by the above real-life, and fatal counter-example.

Coming back to the moving car example, one may feel it move, but one may mistake the feeling with the actual motion the car is executing. Of course, not every case is the sense wrong, but neither is it correct all the time. One must be careful with any of our senses. That's why for audio it's good to complement measurements with listening.

I agree. We are so easily fooled - well at least some of us, lol

Same with audio. So much can be done, the wrong things, the right things, too little, too much etc, and all we have to support us is our hearing, our gear and listening rooms, and some measurements that are at least insufficient. But never forget that this hobby is about enjoying music. Or...?

Quote:

Quote:
I can tell if a car is moving even when blindfolded, providing it moves faster that a turtle. No matter the brand or model. My inner ear will tell me. ...

People can tell a car is moving by various cues. Road vibration is one of those cues even if blindfolded.

There was a plane crash years ago [Edit: while flying at night in a rainstorm], and partly because the pilot could not tell the plane was upside down by his own senses (inner ear), even if the instruments were telling him opposite. This is an example that senses can be fooled and that specific instruments that are not dependent on what he was sensing was displaying the correct information.

So the claim that was made is not supported by the above real-life, and fatal counter-example.

Coming back to the moving car example, one may feel it move, but one may mistake the feeling with the actual motion the car is executing. Of course, not every case is the sense wrong, but neither is it correct all the time. One must be careful with any of our senses. That's why for audio it's good to complement measurements with listening.

On a smooth road with constant speed, eyes closed, one cannot determine the direction of travel, the speed of travel or even if the car is moving at all. The inner ear senses acceleration, not velocity. If one senses an acceleration, he cannot distinguish between someone stepping on the gas and braking; even though he feels the change in velocity he still can't tell which direction he's moving. With his eyes closed, of course. We also don't sense the spin of the Earth, the motion of the Earth around the Sun or, for that matter, the motion of the Milky Way galaxy. Even with eyes open.

You're absolutely correct on this one

Quote:
You're absolutely correct on this one

Even a blind pig finds a truffle every once in a while.

Quote:
Even a blind pig finds a truffle every once in a while.

That's no biggie; pigs find truffles by smell.

Now if you plug its nose . . .

On topic:

"Smear" as overhang, can be acoustically measured. As an example, RT60 is routinely employed as an acoustical measurement used to calculate reverb time decay.

Unless something else is meant by the word "smear" in this context.

Quote:

Quote:
Even a blind pig finds a truffle every once in a while.

That's no biggie; pigs find truffles by smell.

Now if you plug its nose . . .

Quite so. And some pigs smell worse than others.

Quote:

But don't claim the differences can be measured and fail to do so.

I agree Elk. Here is some additional information.

Metal alloys, shapes affect the FR and Q of metal. FR and Q can be manipulated in helmholtz resonators as well. The metal in the bowls can be much smaller for the same mass etc, and is directly exposed to the air/bass power. I think the big question is whether proper Q can be obtained with metal.

I don't know if the bowls work or not, but the art bowls do have multiple times the surface area compared to the opening area of the Audioholics 71hz helmholtz resonator.

http://www.audioholics.com/education/aco...absorber-page-2

It would be interesting to compare a 3" dia bowl to a helmholtz resonator, same frequency, Q etc and see how the measurements differ. Also interesting was how the Audioholics 71hz helmholtz resonator measured since its opening area is only a tiny 5.75 square inches.

Cheers.

[quote
"Smear" as overhang, can be acoustically measured. As an example, RT60 is routinely employed as an acoustical measurement used to calculate reverb time decay.

Unless something else is meant by the word "smear" in this context.

I sit corrected; that is a type of smear that can be measured. But that's just one. The results of effective vibration isolation, for instance, involve much more than diminishment of overhang.

Quote:

Quote:

But don't claim the differences can be measured and fail to do so.

I agree Elk. Here is some additional information.

Metal alloys, shapes affect the FR and Q of metal. FR and Q can be manipulated in helmholtz resonators as well. The metal in the bowls can be much smaller for the same mass etc, and is directly exposed to the air/bass power. I think the big question is whether proper Q can be obtained with metal.

I don't know if the bowls work or not, but the art bowls do have multiple times the surface area compared to the opening area of the Audioholics 71hz helmholtz resonator.

http://www.audioholics.com/education/aco...absorber-page-2

It would be interesting to compare a 3" dia bowl to a helmholtz resonator, same frequency, Q etc and see how the measurements differ. Also interesting was how the Audioholics 71hz helmholtz resonator measured since its opening area is only a tiny 5.75 square inches.

Cheers.

Nice! It would also be interesting to compare the Franck Tchang bowls which are 17 mm diameter with the ART bowls that are 3" diameter. Maybe some kind soul would volunteer to work out the areas and volumes and resonant frequencies, both acoustic and microwave.

Quote:
Nice! It would also be interesting to compare the Franck Tchang bowels which are 17 mm diamter with the ART bowls that are 3" diameter. Maybe some kind soul would volunteer to work out the areas and volumes and resonant frequencis., both acoustic and microwave.

Mebbe but, as I read this thread, I cannot stop thinking of Richard Libertini's character (the Tibetan monk, Prahka Lasa) in the Carl Reiner / Steve Martin / Lili Tomlin movie, "All of me:" Bowl? Bowl? Bowl?

Kal

Quote:

Quote:
Nice! It would also be interesting to compare the Franck Tchang bowels which are 17 mm diamter with the ART bowls that are 3" diameter. Maybe some kind soul would volunteer to work out the areas and volumes and resonant frequencis., both acoustic and microwave.

Mebbe but, as I read this thread, I cannot stop thinking of Richard Libertini's character (the Tibetan monk, Prahka Lasa) in the Carl Reiner / Steve Martin / Lili Tomlin movie, "All of me:" Bowl? Bowl? Bowl?

Kal

Funny! Maybe I can work in a joke about Bob Crump's bowler somewhere...

Quote:

On a smooth road with constant speed, eyes closed, one cannot determine the direction of travel, the speed of travel or even if the car is moving at all. The inner ear senses acceleration, not velocity. If one senses an acceleration, he cannot distinguish between someone stepping on the gas and braking; even though he feels the change in velocity he still can't tell which direction he's moving. With his eyes closed, of course. We also don't sense the spin of the Earth, the motion of the Earth around the Sun or, for that matter, the motion of the Milky Way galaxy. Even with eyes open.

So, what would be your sonic equivalent?

A single tone with only variation in amplitude?

Do you listen in a fashion analagous to your hypothetical car?

Tell us about when you've experienced that sort of car ride! How long was the illusion maintained?

Quote:

Quote:

On a smooth road with constant speed, eyes closed, one cannot determine the direction of travel, the speed of travel or even if the car is moving at all. The inner ear senses acceleration, not velocity. If one senses an acceleration, he cannot distinguish between someone stepping on the gas and braking; even though he feels the change in velocity he still can't tell which direction he's moving. With his eyes closed, of course. We also don't sense the spin of the Earth, the motion of the Earth around the Sun or, for that matter, the motion of the Milky Way galaxy. Even with eyes open.

So, what would be your sonic equivalent?

A single tone with only variation in amplitude?

Do you listen in a fashion analagous to your hypothetical car?

Tell us about when you've experienced that sort of car ride! How long was the illusion maintained?

Quote:
I don't know if the bowls work or not, but the ART bowls do have multiple times the surface area compared to the opening area of the Audioholics 71hz helmholtz resonator.

http://www.audioholics.com/education/aco...absorber-page-2

It would be interesting to compare a 3" dia bowl to a helmholtz resonator, same frequency, Q etc and see how the measurements differ. Also interesting was how the Audioholics 71hz helmholtz resonator measured since its opening area is only a tiny 5.75 square inches.

Would you believe the resonant frequency of a Helmholtz resonator is proportional to the square root of (Surface Area of the opening/Volume of the container)? Thus, the resonant frequency of the Audioholics 71 Hz resonator would have been even lower if the opening had been smaller!

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

On a smooth road with constant speed, eyes closed, one cannot determine the direction of travel, the speed of travel or even if the car is moving at all. The inner ear senses acceleration, not velocity. If one senses an acceleration, he cannot distinguish between someone stepping on the gas and braking; even though he feels the change in velocity he still can't tell which direction he's moving. With his eyes closed, of course. We also don't sense the spin of the Earth, the motion of the Earth around the Sun or, for that matter, the motion of the Milky Way galaxy. Even with eyes open.

So, what would be your sonic equivalent?

A single tone with only variation in amplitude?

Do you listen in a fashion analagous to your hypothetical car?

Tell us about when you've experienced that sort of car ride! How long was the illusion maintained?

Your surrender is duly noted and acknowledged.

Based on my experience, my answer is "science". But I am neither a scientist, nor the inventor of these devices, so I don't have all the answers to this or everything else in the world. And even if I did, I'm not sure I would want to share that here! I read the threads on the acoustic art, and saw so much hostility against it, that I did not find this a good environment for a fair and friendly discussion. I wonder if there are other owners of the acoustic art who 've read the thread and felt the same? In "the real world", I did not experience such hostility and controversy. Not at audio shows where I saw a demonstration of the system, and not among acquaintances to whom I demonstrated my acoustic art system to. And certainly no one I have ever spoken with who's heard the Arts has been indifferent to them, or said they heard no difference. I'm not at all certain if those who seem to be adamant in their opinions against it, have any experience with this or other acoustic resonator type systems. I'm inclined to believe that much of the heat and hostility, or rigid skepticism I've seen, comes from having a pre-determined idea of what something is or isn't. Which is exactly why I try to avoid those limitations, and give things a fair chance. It's an approach that has worked for me tremendously, in the long run.